ight of common of pasture on the commons, such right
being "appendant" to the land which he holds freely of the manor. This
right differs from most other rights of common in the characteristic
that actual exercise of the right need not be proved. When once it is
shown that certain land is held freely of the manor, it follows of
necessity that a right of common of pasture for commonable cattle
attaches to the land, and therefore belongs to its owner, and may be
exercised by its occupant. "Common appendant," said the Elizabethan
judges, "is of common right, and commences by operation of law and in
favour of tillage."

Now this is exactly what we saw to be the case with reference to the use
of the common of the vill by the householder cultivating the arable
fields. The use was a necessity, not depending upon the habits of this
or that householder; it was a use for commonable cattle only, and was
connected with the tillage of the arable lands. It seems almost
necessarily to follow that the freehold tenants of the manor are the
representatives of the householders of the vill. However this may be, it
is amongst the freehold tenants of the manor that we must first look for
commoners on the waste of the manor.

Owing, however, to the light character of the services rendered by the
freeholders, the connexion of their lands with the manor is often
difficult to prove. Copyhold tenure, on the other hand, cannot be lost
sight of; and in many manors copyholders are numerous, or were, till
quite recently. Copyholders almost invariably possess a right of common
on the waste of the manor; and when (as is usual) they exist side by
side with freeholders, their rights are generally of the same character.
They do not, however, exist as of common right, without proof of usage,
but by the custom of the manor. Custom has been defined by a great judge
(Sir George Jessel, M.R., in _Hammerton_ v. _Honey_) as local law. Thus,
while the freehold tenants enjoy their rights by the general law of the
land, the copyholders have a similar enjoyment by the local law of the
manor. This, again, is what one might expect from the ancient
constitution of a village community. The copyholders, being originally
serfs, had no rights at law; but as they had a share in the tillage of
the land, and gradually became possessed of strips in the common fields,
or of other plots on which they were settled by the lord, they were
admitted by way of indulgence to the use o